The problem is...

...That almost all of your arguments are based on the assumption that the earth is flat and therefore if any side is to gain higher ground you must look at it from a neutral stand point.

RE:
widely accepted
vast amounts of proof
you can see satelites if you get a good telescope and know where to look



FE:
sparsely accepted
Little to no amounts of proof
is backed up by one experiment made during the 1800's which was later proven wrong

QED

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

No really what is bad about it that makes you seek out an alternative?

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

No really what is bad about it that makes you seek out an alternative?

It's full of assumptions which defy reason and theories which are accepted despite the fact that they don't really work. It also has its basis in a shaky philosophical model. Finally, philosophically speaking, it makes sense to believe that the Earth iis flat until sensorial evidence to the contrary is provided.

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

Nothing. It does provide fuel for sophomoric contrarians, however.

...That almost all of your arguments are based on the assumption that the earth is flat and therefore if any side is to gain higher ground you must look at it from a neutral stand point.

RE:
widely accepted

This doesn't mean anything in terms of truth. Appeal to majority.

vast amounts of proof

There is no proof.

you can see satelites if you get a good telescope and know where to look

That doesn't mean the earth is a sphere.

FE:
sparsely accepted

This doesn't mean anything in terms of truth. Appeal to majority.

Little to no amounts of proof

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

is backed up by one experiment made during the 1800's which was later proven wrong

Actually, many experiments that anyone can conduct at their leisure, as presented in Earth Not A Globe.

QED

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

No really what is bad about it that makes you seek out an alternative?

For me, it's not about seeking out an alternative. RE is the alternative. What's bad about FE that makes you seek out RE as an alternative? Everyone knows instinctively that the earth is flat until they are told to believe otherwise, thus RE is the alternative, and FE is the default.

Right, FE is default if you're ignorant to the facts. All large surfaces look flat as you approach them closely. We are seeing the tangent plane approximation to the earth's true surface. If the earth's surface is on a sphere, ellipsoid, paraboloid, flat plane, a cataclysmic, or anything else, it will look like a flat plane close up. As we go higher up, it starts to clearly look less flat and more spheroidal. Mere instinctive reasoning is uninformed.

Right, FE is default if you're ignorant to the facts. All large surfaces look flat as you approach them closely. We are seeing the tangent plane approximation to the earth's true surface. If the earth's surface is on a sphere, ellipsoid, paraboloid, flat plane, a cataclysmic, or anything else, it will look like a flat plane close up. As we go higher up, it starts to clearly look less flat and more spheroidal. Mere instinctive reasoning is uninformed.

If by uninformed you mean un-brainwashed.

Look, I've been on planes, some that went very high, and I can assure you that even at such heights the earth is clearly flat. It's not just because we're so close up; even going higher up the shape of the earth remains true to what is obvious.

If by uninformed you mean un-brainwashed.

This is where you jump the shark from "skeptic" to "crazy-paranoid."

Quote from: W on August 21, 2009, 07:44:13 PM

If by uninformed you mean un-brainwashed.

This is where you jump the shark from "skeptic" to "crazy-paranoid."

Personal attacks = Not an argument.

Quote from: shades on August 21, 2009, 05:46:56 PM

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

No really what is bad about it that makes you seek out an alternative?

It's full of assumptions which defy reason and theories which are accepted despite the fact that they don't really work. It also has its basis in a shaky philosophical model. Finally, philosophically speaking, it makes sense to believe that the Earth iis flat until sensorial evidence to the contrary is provided.

So both ideas, a spherical earth and a flat earth are based on assumptions then where lots of things defy reason and theories that don't really work. The problem it seems then is one of your 'sensorial evidence' and it is not only well known but can easily be shown that your senses can deceive you. So where does one go from there?

I would think, that if you really want to know, instead of simply living with the assumptions, that you would look for other evidence to prove things one way or another. That you ignore lots of sound evidence that supports a spherical earth and accept what is at best shaky evidence for a flat earth because it supports your sensorial evidence is the reason that FET is close to a religious belief.

It's your loss.

Quote from: Anduie on August 21, 2009, 07:48:59 PM

Quote from: W on August 21, 2009, 07:44:13 PM

If by uninformed you mean un-brainwashed.

This is where you jump the shark from "skeptic" to "crazy-paranoid."

Personal attacks = Not an argument.

Look, kid, I care about your rules for debate as much as you care about scientific rigor. "Brainwash" means a very specific thing and if you are suggesting that the government is forcibly doing this, then you are suggesting a dangerous conspiracy that has little grounding in reality other than the reality that supports your ideas.

If by uninformed you mean un-brainwashed.

Look, I've been on planes, some that went very high, and I can assure you that even at such heights the earth is clearly flat. It's not just because we're so close up; even going higher up the shape of the earth remains true to what is obvious.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/59/177373136_b989aaab0b.jpg

That is NOT flat. To claim it is flat, is just idiotic. People have flown jets to the top of the atmosphere, and seen the curve of the earth quite obviously (they were high enough to be able to see multiple continents at once).
Are you going to claim that some sort of 'height sickness' takes of hold of anyone that goes to such altitudes and makes them begin hallucinating?
It's a long shot, but give it a try.

I do believe the current implication is that you have been brainwashed. Unless W means something other than actual brainwashing and more along the lines of indoctrinated.

Quote from: W on August 21, 2009, 07:52:44 PM

Quote from: Anduie on August 21, 2009, 07:48:59 PM

Quote from: W on August 21, 2009, 07:44:13 PM

If by uninformed you mean un-brainwashed.

This is where you jump the shark from "skeptic" to "crazy-paranoid."

Personal attacks = Not an argument.

Look, kid, I care about your rules for debate as much as you care about scientific rigor. "Brainwash" means a very specific thing and if you are suggesting that the government is forcibly doing this, then you are suggesting a dangerous conspiracy that has little grounding in reality other than the reality that supports your ideas.

If by "my rules" you mean "logic," then you're right, you don't seem to care much about logic. Google ad hominem.

If by "my rules" you mean "logic," then you're right, you don't seem to care much about logic. Google ad hominem.

I also suggest you try to understand that you were making a wild accusation that was unjustified. If you wish to add logical fallacies to that, go ahead, but it does not diminish the fact that you did so. Also creating a us versus them mentality.

Look at the footage from approx 1:10.

Explain that.

Look at the footage from approx 1:10.

Explain that.

What's to explain?

Quote from: Wings on August 22, 2009, 10:56:39 AM

Look at the footage from approx 1:10.

Explain that.

What's to explain?

The fact that you can clearly see curvature in the Earth outside of the spaceship. Oh yes and the fact that they were in space.

Quote from: shades on August 21, 2009, 05:46:56 PM

...That almost all of your arguments are based on the assumption that the earth is flat and therefore if any side is to gain higher ground you must look at it from a neutral stand point.

RE:
widely accepted

This doesn't mean anything in terms of truth. Appeal to majority.

Quote

vast amounts of proof

There is no proof.

Quote

you can see satelites if you get a good telescope and know where to look

That doesn't mean the earth is a sphere.

Quote

FE:
sparsely accepted

This doesn't mean anything in terms of truth. Appeal to majority.

Quote

Little to no amounts of proof

The proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

Quote

is backed up by one experiment made during the 1800's which was later proven wrong

Actually, many experiments that anyone can conduct at their leisure, as presented in Earth Not A Globe.

Quote

QED

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

No really what is bad about it that makes you seek out an alternative?

For me, it's not about seeking out an alternative. RE is the alternative. What's bad about FE that makes you seek out RE as an alternative? Everyone knows instinctively that the earth is flat until they are told to believe otherwise, thus RE is the alternative, and FE is the default.

No what I'm saying is we were always taught that the earth is round. Why should we reject this? Is there some sort of gaping hole in this theory that requires investigation? Does it suggest a conspiracy?

Alternative:
definition;   Existing outside traditional or established institutions or systems: an alternative lifestyle.

Quote from: W on August 22, 2009, 11:10:07 AM

Quote from: Wings on August 22, 2009, 10:56:39 AM

Look at the footage from approx 1:10.

Explain that.

What's to explain?

The fact that you can clearly see curvature in the Earth outside of the spaceship. Oh yes and the fact that they were in space.

I don't see any curvature...

Quote from: shades on August 23, 2009, 04:19:12 PM

Quote from: W on August 22, 2009, 11:10:07 AM

Quote from: Wings on August 22, 2009, 10:56:39 AM

Look at the footage from approx 1:10.

Explain that.

What's to explain?

The fact that you can clearly see curvature in the Earth outside of the spaceship. Oh yes and the fact that they were in space.

I don't see any curvature...

In the top right corner you can see a glimpse of the earth. The curvature is very faint, but it is there.

Watch the video. That isn't the curvature of the Earth. It appears to be the edge of the hatch he's exiting through.

Yeah, that's actually not the curvature of the earth. The curvature of the earth is at 1:22.

And I find it weird that many FE'ers deny the existence of the perceived curvature of the earth, while others admit that the curvature of the earth exists yet is actually the curve of the sun's spotlight. Which is it?

Appearance of curvature doesn't even prove anything. Get off it people.

Appearance of curvature doesn't even prove anything. Get off it people.

However, if something appears to be curved, it's more likely that it is curved than for it to be flat but just appear to be curved. This statement is based on observation of real objects that are known to be either flat or curved - rulers, apples, skulls, tables, etc.

Quote from: W on August 23, 2009, 04:43:53 PM

Quote from: shades on August 23, 2009, 04:19:12 PM

Quote from: W on August 22, 2009, 11:10:07 AM

Quote from: Wings on August 22, 2009, 10:56:39 AM

Look at the footage from approx 1:10.

Explain that.

What's to explain?

The fact that you can clearly see curvature in the Earth outside of the spaceship. Oh yes and the fact that they were in space.

I don't see any curvature...

In the top right corner you can see a glimpse of the earth. The curvature is very faint, but it is there.

No because the earth takes up all that you can see out the spaceship. The only "curve" is that of the exit.

Quote from: shades on August 21, 2009, 05:46:56 PM

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

No really what is bad about it that makes you seek out an alternative?

It's full of assumptions which defy reason and theories which are accepted despite the fact that they don't really work.

  It's this kind of claim that makes me really interested, what are your scientific qualifications in areas like surveying, geodesy, astronomy, physics, meteorology, optics, and maybe someone can think something else? Either you know very well all these sciences and more and you base your claim on knowledge or you just base your claim on your ignorance, because you just don't understand how things work. I am just curious.

Quote from: Lord Wilmore on August 21, 2009, 05:56:10 PM

Quote from: shades on August 21, 2009, 05:46:56 PM

oh yes and I would also like to start a sub topic here because I don't want to post two topics: what's wrong with RET?

No really what is bad about it that makes you seek out an alternative?

It's full of assumptions which defy reason and theories which are accepted despite the fact that they don't really work.

  It's this kind of claim that makes me really interested, what are your scientific qualifications in areas like surveying, geodesy, astronomy, physics, meteorology, optics, and maybe someone can think something else? Either you know very well all these sciences and more and you base your claim on knowledge or you just base your claim on your ignorance, because you just don't understand how things work. I am just curious.

Hmmm. Full of assumptions that defy reason? Like the anti-moon and the ice wall? What am I saying of cource the FET doesn't have any stupid assumptions. 

The earth is square.

The earth is square.

It could be...